Maybe someone can explain to me why Logan recommended not only a raise for himself to "keep up with the neighbors", as well as some more administrators, transportation, and athlethic directors?

When we were trying to just figure out how many central office administrators there were we were told, "we cannot compare central office of one district to another because there are too many differences. Now:"Three of our administrators were recently recruited for jobs in other communities, and I am concerned about the lowlevel of compensation for the job requirements/expectations of the other three. It takestime and resources to prepare high quality school administrators. A modest salaryadjustment would serve as a retention incentive. A $5,000 per year adjustment isrequested for four principals, $6,000 for one, and $7,900 for the superintendent.Additionally, I am requesting that my performance bonus be converted to salary. Forthe record, I have researched the salary compensation for the superintendents in somesurrounding school districts. Although I have equal to more experience as asuperintendent and the district is performing well, my salary is $19,000 below theaverage of the surrounding districts."

Also, this idea of converting a performance bonus to a permanent pay raise is BIG deal. I cannot remember the percentage but it was very substantial and it is questionable that he even earned what he got this year, Not all of it, base on a revised criteria. So now it will not even be based at all on performance. This guy has ...... And the BOE is foolish if they go along with it.

To remind yourself how much the people in central office make BEFORE longevity pay go to this link:http://chatham-county-nc.com/bulletinboard/index.php/topic,21864.750.htmlsecond to last post on the last page.I don't know about you but I am planning to write the BOE to suggest that performance bunuses are for performance.I hope everyone remembers when R. Logan told the audiance at one of the reconfiguration meetings that teachers cost $55K per year. A senior taecher stood up and said I don't make $55K. Mr. Logan said, "no, teachers COST us $55K/yr." At another meeting I read all the saleries at central office. Mr. Logan said, "I don't make 195K". No, but he costs us 195K before his performance bonus or longevity pay.

Maybe the time has come to part company. I don't want to see anyone held back from getting what they think they're worth. Or at very least go shopping and see what's out there.And performance based pay is what's needed here.

Superintendents are on a state salary schedule just like teachers. Their salary is based on Number of schools (if I am not mistaken - may be number of teachers). He accepted the salary to get the job, and now we have to pay to keep him here - lest he go looking for greener pastures?? No person is indispensible! Just ask the coaches at UNC and State.

Another question........Why did he request his bonus be converted to salary? When he gets his W2, it is listed as salary. Are bonuses taxed more? He is as good at spending tax money as the clowns in Washington!! Too bad teachers/assistants do not have that kind of bargaining capabilities. By all means, let's keep the quality personnel at the county office - quality teachers are secondary.

Why did he request his bonus be converted to salary? When he gets his W2, it is listed as salary. Are bonuses taxed more? He is as good at spending tax money as the clowns in Washington!! Too bad teachers/assistants do not have that kind of bargaining capabilities. By all means, let's keep the quality personnel at the county office - quality teachers are secondary.

The reason he would want it to be salary is a) because it would become a permanent, guaranteed annual increase instead of a one time payment, and b) raises and pensions are based your salary, not your income (salary plus bonus). It's completely to one's advantage to get a raise instead of a bonus.

So for example, say he makes $100,000 and gets a bonus of $5000. Then next year the state gives a 2% raise, then his raise would be computed on 100,000. If he got an actual salary increase this year of $5000, his next year's raise would be 2% on 105,000 instead of 100,000.

Why did he request his bonus be converted to salary? When he gets his W2, it is listed as salary. Are bonuses taxed more? He is as good at spending tax money as the clowns in Washington!! Too bad teachers/assistants do not have that kind of bargaining capabilities. By all means, let's keep the quality personnel at the county office - quality teachers are secondary.

The reason he would want it to be salary is a) because it would become a permanent, guaranteed annual increase instead of a one time payment, and b) raises and pensions are based your salary, not your income (salary plus bonus). It's completely to one's advantage to get a raise instead of a bonus.

So for example, say he makes $100,000 and gets a bonus of $5000. Then next year the state gives a 2% raise, then his raise would be computed on 100,000. If he got an actual salary increase this year of $5000, his next year's raise would be 2% on 105,000 instead of 100,000.

Ain't that just wonderful for him!! Why don't we do that for everybody then?

Why did he request his bonus be converted to salary? When he gets his W2, it is listed as salary. Are bonuses taxed more? He is as good at spending tax money as the clowns in Washington!! Too bad teachers/assistants do not have that kind of bargaining capabilities. By all means, let's keep the quality personnel at the county office - quality teachers are secondary.

The reason he would want it to be salary is a) because it would become a permanent, guaranteed annual increase instead of a one time payment, and b) raises and pensions are based your salary, not your income (salary plus bonus). It's completely to one's advantage to get a raise instead of a bonus.

So for example, say he makes $100,000 and gets a bonus of $5000. Then next year the state gives a 2% raise, then his raise would be computed on 100,000. If he got an actual salary increase this year of $5000, his next year's raise would be 2% on 105,000 instead of 100,000.

Ain't that just wonderful for him!! Why don't we do that for everybody then?

This is from the Sept. 10th BOE meeting. This meeting is the one where the performance bonus was discussed. If he were to achieve all goals it is 7,558. He did not achieve all goals last year so he did not get the full amount, (he got $6,187). I assume since he requested that the performance bonus be part a permanent part of his salary it will be retroactive to last Dec. as he requested in the last meeting request. Therefore he will get his partial bonus from the 2012-2013 year plus the full bonus amount as now part of his salery plus the raise of $7,900.00 for an additional amount of $21,645K on top of his base salary.

Has anyone seen what specific systems Mr. Logan is using to benchmark his salary expectations? Are they the same systems that he uses to benchmark other metrics? (school performance, teacher salaries, offered classes, etc.)

I plan on asking Mr Logan to share with me and was curious to see if anyone has seen this information yet?

This is the argument given to the BOE: ..."and $7,900 for the superintendent.Additionally, I am requesting that my performance bonus be converted to salary. Forthe record, I have researched the salary compensation for the superintendents in somesurrounding school districts. Although I have equal to more experience as asuperintendent and the district is performing well, my salary is $19,000 below theaverage of the surrounding districts."